V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus restraining respondent No. 1, namely, Additional Industrial Tribunal- cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, from giving effect to the order dated 6-1-1996 passed by it in IA No. 267 of 1995 in MP No. 21 of 1995. ( 2 ) ON 31-1-1996, while admitting the writpetition, this Court in WPMP No. 1911 of 1996, granted interim stay of operation of the order passed in IA No. 267 of 1995. Respondent No. 2 after receiving the notice in the writ petition, filed an application being WVMP No. 2947 of 2000 on 7-11-2000 praying to vacate the stay order passed by this Court on 31 -1 -1996. ( 3 ) WHEN the miscellaneous applicationscame up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri. K. Srinivasa Murthy and Ms. Uma as well as respondent No. 2 appearing as party-in-person requested that the matter be disposed of finally. Accordingly, the matter was heard on 9-11-2000 and 13-11-2000. ( 4 ) THIS order shall dispose of the writpetition finally. ( 5 ) ONE Sri. K. V. Panthulu. Branchmanager, filed an affidavit on behalf of the petitioner, which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 was a Clerk- cum-Typist. He questioned the order of transfer and filed an application being MP No. 21 of 1995 on the file of respondent No. 1 under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 (for brevity the ID Act ) claiming an amount of Rs. 12,592/- towards wages from July, 1994 to October, 1994 at the rate of Rs. 978/- per month with usual allowances. It is alleged that the matter went up to the Division Bench of this Court, which ultimately held that respondent no. 2 has not worked from the date of the transfer order, and therefore, he is not entitled to claim wages for the period he has not worked. The Division Bench, also observed, it is stated, that the workman has to move the Conciliation Officer and get the dispute referred, and then only he can question the order of transfer. Respondent no. 2-workman filed a number of applications under Section 33-C{2) of the ID act. The Division Bench, also observed, it is stated, that the workman has to move the Conciliation Officer and get the dispute referred, and then only he can question the order of transfer. Respondent no. 2-workman filed a number of applications under Section 33-C{2) of the ID act. The petitioner contended that on the principle of res judicata, the applications cannot be filed over and over again, and the tribunal-cum-Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such applications, and if at all the workman has to claim, he must question before the Tribunal/labour court in West Bengal and not in hyderabad. In spite of the petitioner raising objections as to the maintainability of the petition under Section 33-C (2) of the ID Act, respondent No. 2-workman filed an application to summon Sri. Amit Kumar sen, Managing Director of the petitioner- company. The petitioner contended that the Managing Director has nothing to do with the wages, and it is only the Branch manager, who deals with the matter. As another MP being MP No. 33 of 1994 was already decided on 12-7-1995, the present mp being MP No. 21 of 1995 is filed only to harass the Managing Director, Respondent no. 2 is not for settlement, but is bent upon bringing down the reputation of the persons in-charge of the Management. Without realizing this, the Industrial tribunal-cum-Labour Court issued summons calling upon Amit Kumar Sen, managing Director of the petitioner- company to appear on 6-2-1996 to give evidence, and if he disobeys the summons, complications would arise. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed. ( 6 ) IN the counter-affidavit, filed by theworkman, it is stated that the writ petition field by the company, through its Branch manager, Sri. K. V. Panthulu is not maintainable. The summons is issued to amit Kumar Sen, Managing Director of the petitioner-Company. The writ petition is filed to protract the matter and stall the proceedings pending before the Additional industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour court. No prejudice would be caused if sri Amit Kumar Sen is summoned for giving evidence before the Additional industrial Tribunal. The impugned order is justified, and in any event, when a discretionary order is passed by the competent Tribunal, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court. Respondent no. 2 also relied on the judgment of this court in W. P. No. 10012 of 1996 dated 30-10-1996. The impugned order is justified, and in any event, when a discretionary order is passed by the competent Tribunal, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court. Respondent no. 2 also relied on the judgment of this court in W. P. No. 10012 of 1996 dated 30-10-1996. ( 7 ) THE submission made bysri K. Srinivasa Murthy and Ms. Uma is that the claim made by respondent No. 2 in MP no. 21 of 1995 was already rejected. The workman is resorting to repeated applications under Section 33-C (2) of the ID act only to harass the Managing Director. In view of this, summoning the Managing director is not warranted. No other submission is made in challenge to the impugned order dated 6-1-1996 passed in ia No. 267 of 1995. Indeed, in the affidavit also, no specific grounds are taken as to how there is improper exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal in passing orders on 6-1-1996 and issuing summons to sri Amit Kumar Sen. Though a specific ground is taken by the workman that sri K. V. Panthulu, Branch Manager is not competent to file the writ petition on behalf of the company, it has not been specifically adverted to or denied by filing the reply affidavit. ( 8 ) THE party-in-person, Sri Ramachandramurthy, reiterated the contentions as made in the counter-affidavit. ( 9 ) THE points that arise for considerationare - (1) whether Sri. K. V. Panthulu, Branch manager, on behalf of the company or the petitioner-Company can question the summons issued to Sri Amit Kumar Sen, managing Director of the company, and (2) whether the order dated 6-1-1996 passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal in IA no. 267 of 1995, summoning Sri Amit kumar Sen, Managing Director of the petitioner-Company to appear before it suffers from any error grave error of jurisdiction by the Additional Industrial tribunal. In repaint No. 1: ( 10 ) ADMITTEDLY, respondent No. 2 filedia No. 267 of 1995 to summon Sri Amit kumar Sen, Managing Director of the petitioner-Company to give evidence. On 6-1-1996, there was no representation for the company before the Industrial tribunal. In repaint No. 1: ( 10 ) ADMITTEDLY, respondent No. 2 filedia No. 267 of 1995 to summon Sri Amit kumar Sen, Managing Director of the petitioner-Company to give evidence. On 6-1-1996, there was no representation for the company before the Industrial tribunal. Therefore, recording the fact that respondent-Managing Director is absent, the Industrial Tribunal, directed to issue summons to Sri Amit Kumar Sen as his evidence will finally decide the point in issue - whether the petitioner was transferred to Calcutta, and whether he is not entitled to claim the wages at hyderabad. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the management filed a counter in IA No. 267 of 1995, neither it annexed to the writ petition nor placed before me at the time of hearing the writ petition, and therefore, it has to be presumed that the management did not file any counter in IA No. 267 of 1995, and in any event admittedly there was no representation for the management on 6-1-1996 when IA No. 267 of 1995 was considered by the Industrial Tribunal. ( 11 ) THE order dated 6-1-1996, directingissuance of summons to Sri Amit Kumar sen reads as under:"whereas the above named petitioner filed an application IA No. 267 of 1995 calling you (respondent No. 1) as his witness and by order dated 6-1-1996 this Court ordered to issue summons to you (respondent No. 1) to give evidence on 6-2-1996 at 11 -00 a. m. in this Court in the above matter. Hence you are hereby directed to appear before this Court in person on 6-2-1996 at 11-00 a. m. to give evidence in the above MP No. 21 of 1995. If you fail to comply with this order without legal excuse, you will be subjected to the consequences of non- attendance as laid down under C. P. C. 1908. Given under my hand and seal of court on the 17th day of January, 1996," ( 12 ) IT is not on record whethersri Amit Kumar Sen approached the industrial Tribunal showing a lawful excuse for not appearing before the Additional industrial Tribunal on 6-2-1996. Instead, sri K. V. Panthulu, the Branch Manager filed the writ petition. Given under my hand and seal of court on the 17th day of January, 1996," ( 12 ) IT is not on record whethersri Amit Kumar Sen approached the industrial Tribunal showing a lawful excuse for not appearing before the Additional industrial Tribunal on 6-2-1996. Instead, sri K. V. Panthulu, the Branch Manager filed the writ petition. In my considered opinion, when notice is issued to a person to be present in the Court as witness, the law gives an opportunity to such person to show "lawful excuse" for not appearing either to give evidence or produce the documents. No third person, muchless, the branch Manager, has such right to question the summons. That is to say, the person summoned to be witness is alone said to be aggrieved by the summons issued. Sri Amit Kumar Sen has not filed the writ petition, and therefore, the submission of the party-in-person that the writ petition at the instance of the Sri K. V. Panthulu, branch Manager, questioning the summons dated 17-1-1996 calling upon Amit Kumar sen to appear before the Additional industrial Tribunal to give evidence on 6-2-1996 is not maintainable, has to be accepted. It is well settled that public law remedy to enforce constitutional and statutory rights cannot be invoked at the instance of third parties other than directly aggrieved parties. On point No. 1, I hold accordingly. In re point No. 2 : ( 13 ) THE Industrial Tribunal is conferredwith powers of a civil Court in certain matters, and it is necessary to refer to the relevant provision Section 11 (3) of the ID act, which reads as follows: 11 (3): Every Board, Court, Labour court, Tribunal and National Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters namely - (a) enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath, (b) compelling the production of documents and material objects; (c) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses; (d) in respect of such other matters as may be prescribed. ( 14 ) A plain reading of the above showsthat the Tribunal is vested with the same powers as a civil Court under the Code of civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity cpc ) in respect of enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath or compelling the production of documents. In the absence of compliance with the summons issued by the Industrial Tribunal under Section 11 (3), the consequences that follow are the same as postulated by rule 10 (2) read with Rule 21 of Order XVI of CPC, which reads as under:"rule 10 (2) - Where the Court sees reason to believe that such evidence or production is material, and that such person has, without lawful excuse, failed to attend or to produce the documents in compliance with such summons or has intentionally avoided service, it may issue a proclamation requiring him to attend to give evidence or to produce the document at a time and place to be named therein; and a copy of such proclamation shall be affixed on the outer door or other conspicuous part of the house in which he ordinarily resides. Rule 21 - Where any party to a suit is required to give evidence or to produce a document, the provisions as to witnesses shall apply to him so far as they are applicable. " ( 15 ) IF a person, who is summoned togive evidence or to produce the document fails to attend without lawful excuse, such a person is liable for severe action, including attachment and proclamation. However, it is always open to any person or witness to show to the Court or Tribunal any lawful excuse for not appearing to give evidence or produce the documents. ( 16 ) SRI Amit Kumar Sen, ought to haveshown lawful excuse , if any, to the additional Industrial Tribunal for not appearing. Even now, it is always open to sri Amit Kumar Sen to show lawful excuse in terms of Rule 10 (2) read with Rule 21 of order XVI CPC, and seek appropriate clarification or necessary orders. At the instance of the Branch Manager, the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India. Even now, it is always open to sri Amit Kumar Sen to show lawful excuse in terms of Rule 10 (2) read with Rule 21 of order XVI CPC, and seek appropriate clarification or necessary orders. At the instance of the Branch Manager, the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India. ( 17 ) THE learned counsel for the petitionerlaid more stress on the history of the litigation, and no attempt was made to bring the non-appearance of Sri Amit kumar Sen under the exempted category under Rule 10 (2) of Order XVI CPC. The writ petition, it is rightly contended by the party-in-person, is only intended to protract the litigation. It has been held by the supreme Court repeatedly that the industrial adjudication brooks no delay, and any attempts by the management to cause delay in industrial adjudication amounts to misuse and abuse of the process of the Court. An attempt is made in this case only towards that end. This is one fit case to issue directions ex debito justitiae to the Additional Industrial Tribunal, to dispose of MP No. 21 of 1991, within a period of six weeks from to-day, considering all the issues raised by the workman and the management. ( 18 ) THERE are no merits in the writpetition. The same is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only ).